AI workflow automation
Draft assessments, board reports and regulatory submission material from governed records, with named owners responsible for review and approval.
Agentic Studio prepares assessment, board-report and regulatory submission drafts from governed register records. The workflow connects source evidence to a structured output and a named approver. AI Consultant provides a related compliance-intelligence path for questions and deliverables grounded in supplied organisational context. Each scope defines what the draft can use and who accepts it.
For operations leaders, process owners, application teams and internal service functions.
Bring the selected risks, controls, assessments, findings and actions into an assessment or reporting workflow. Define the output structure and preserve references to supporting records. Agentic Studio prepares material for review; a named owner accepts the conclusions, commitments and final release.
Map the sequence of preparation, generation, review and approval. Give each handoff an owner and a useful view of the source material. Define how incomplete inputs, a rejected draft or an unanswered question return to the right person for resolution.
Begin with permissions that match the task, such as preparing a draft without publishing it. Assess each additional action against its consequences and approval needs. Document how changes are reviewed and how an operator can pause or recover the workflow.
A governance team selects reviewed risk, control and action records for a board assurance update. Agentic Studio prepares a draft with references to the selected register entries and highlights missing inputs. The named report owner reviews the conclusions, resolves open questions and authorises the material shared through the established reporting channel.
The trial compares the draft against the source records and checks how much review it needs. It also tests a late input, conflicting status information and a rejected summary. No publishing or system update is assumed in this illustrative scope.
Select a recurring assessment or report with governed source records and a named approver. Agree the output structure, evidence references and actions that remain under human authority.
Walk through the current process, including exceptions. Identify the inputs, output, users, judgement points and consequences of an incorrect result.
Agree draft structure, permitted source access, reviewer responsibilities and the actions the workflow may take. Define the cases that require escalation.
Evaluate representative inputs and failure cases in a bounded setting. Inspect source use, draft quality, approval behaviour and the ability to stop processing.
Document operating steps, ownership and change review. Use observed reviewer feedback to prioritise improvements before adding new sources, users or action permissions.
These inputs help turn an initial discussion into a focused scope.
Measure draft quality and review effort. Test incomplete inputs, rejected outputs and the limits on actions the workflow can take.
Explore the relevant product capabilities, then confirm the integrations, configuration and delivery scope for your organisation.
Start with the records your governance team already maintains. Agentic Studio prepares assessment, board report and regulatory submission drafts, giving reviewers the evidence, open questions and approval path they need to make the report their own.
Bring your compliance question, organisational context and supporting documents together. AI Consultant asks for what is missing and prepares a working document, so your specialist can focus on the evidence, reasoning and conclusion that matter.
Bring the workflow, people and implementation together.
Explore Aliph AI servicesChoose a recurring task with accessible inputs, a reviewable output and an accountable owner. It should be narrow enough to evaluate with real examples. A process with unresolved decision rights may need design work before automation.
No. Use ordinary process rules where the steps are clear and predictable. Reserve AI assistance for the parts where it can help interpret, draft or summarise, and evaluate that contribution against the current way of working.
Any write action needs an explicit scope, permission model and approval approach. Start by understanding the effect of an incorrect or duplicate action, then agree how the team will validate, investigate and recover before enabling it.
Review results against the agreed criteria, including failures and human review effort. Add scope when the process owner understands the operating responsibilities and the evidence supports the next step. New data, tools or users should trigger a fresh review.
Tell us about your current process, intended users and requirements. We’ll help define a first implementation and a practical way to evaluate it.
Start a conversation